by 88AriesLEwagon » Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:33 pm
For some reason,the 2.6 Mitsu was a decent engine in Mitsu vehicles,but the FWD transition in Chrysler vehicles (in my experience) wasnt so rosy.Take a 78-83 Challenger/Sapporo,a Plymouth Fire Arrow,a Conquest turbo.....even a Dodge Raider/Mitsu Montero,and the 2.6 was a trusty plant.For some reason,the FWD K applications (and minivan) suffered carb issues,driveability problems,crankshaft failures (around 80K miles usually),and balance shaft chain slop that would wear holes in the timing cover.For years,balance shaft elimination kits were a hot item.Chrysler did not want to use the 2.6 at all,especially in its "all American K cars",but they had no choice,as their lack of funds at the time negated any development of the 2.2 (originally planned to be a 2.0)past its base output rating.They knew that a turbo 2.2 would come along eventually(it was in development in 1980/81),and an enlarged 2.2 "regular" engine to finally replace the 2.6.Plus the working relationship Chrysler had with Mitsubishi already in place was a natural for a source of a larger than 2.2 engine.
Generally I have no problem with Mitsubishi or their engines,
but their 2.6 was an engine in need of further development and polish.Why they never made substantial upgrades to it as far as carburetion (kick Mikuni off the planet in other words),those blasted balance shaft chains,and a seemingly flawed lower end oiling system is a mystery.The engine could have been a Honda/Toyota beater,and the template for future Chrysler engines,as it was,Chrysler ignored it,kicked it to the curb (went 2.5) and never looked back (except for a nod in the "silent shaft" department with the enlarged 2.5).Even the follow up Neon 2.0 was based around the 2.2 architecture...not any Mitsubishi engine.